Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    angliholic's Avatar
    angliholic is offline Key Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Chinese
      • Home Country:
      • Taiwan
      • Current Location:
      • Taiwan
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.

    Deforestation also threatens the pandas' food supply. Pandas feed mainly on bamboo, consuming up to 38 kilograms a day. Without enough forest area, the pandas will starve.

    Deforestation ... Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.


    Do both of the above two versions read well and convey the same senes? Thanks.

  2. #2
    MrPedantic is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Without enough forests, pandas will be starving.

    Hello Angli,

    I would choose the first version. In a serious context, "starve" in continuous forms can convey the meaning "starve to death", e.g.

    1. People in Africa are starving.

    But "starve" (again, in continuous forms) can also convey "be very hungry", in an exaggerated, non-serious way, e.g.

    2. I'm starving = I'm very hungry
    3. I was starving = I was very hungry

    This is less true of the continuous future; but the "very hungry" meaning does seem to interfere with your intended meaning, in your example #2.

    Best wishes,

    MrP

    Not a professional ESL teacher.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-Sep-2007, 16:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •